Let me start my reflection with the group dynamics. It was a great experience. I learned how connected a group can be even though we are at a distance from one another. With the assignment timeframe, I found that the biggest challenge was getting ourselves connected. Deciding on where we would collaborate stalled us in the beginning. But, not much. It was just confusing. Each of us didn't know what tools the others were most comfortable with and we wanted to be sure we each would be able to get to the materials with equal ease. That is a reflection of how respectful and considerate we were to one another.
Danielle was great at stepping up and formulating the questions. She is very enthusiastic and a real motivator. You could tell that she had done her research and wrote great questions, really more than that, she wrote a script. (we all agreed to research both characters so we would all be well prepared, and we shared literature amongst us). This set the framework for Xiyao and I. Xiyao had the greatest challenge to try to translate Jane Roland Martin's writings into a character. But, when there was a struggle we all rallied together to try to find a solution. As a group, we shared the work equally. We set milestones and deadlines that we hit, not dead on, but very close. I also liked how we were very efficient in our planning and communicating. We touched base in class, made general plans face-to-face and then got into specifics and the time consuming work online and individually.
I have a very hard time evaluating my own performance. Being in the moment precludes a good objective assessment of what I said. I hope I was true to what Hirsch would have said. For answering questions I just had to synthesize his beliefs, his writings, and his career to create the answer I think he would embrace. Danielle was very much in the role and did a great job with timing and keeping us well paced. Xiyao had such a difficult character, she had to speak more "on the fly" than I did. And she did a great job doing it. She was well paced and thoughtful in her answers. There is so much material for preparing for Hirsch I felt like I had an advantage to speaking in character. I listened twice to a podcast of one of his presentations and that was a great help. I'm afraid more of my personality leaked into the presentation of Hirsch than I had meant.
I know that studying Hirsch affected my beliefs about curriculum. One of my classmates from previous classes asked me what I truly felt about Hirsch's ideas and I was surprised to hear myself rationalizing and explaining his beliefs. I reflected on my own educational experiences as a child and could see the merits in Hirsch's ideas. And all of his work is supported by research and he explains his enlightenment from the research he has done and his own experiences as a teacher. I also find Martin's philosophies appealing, but in a much lesser sense. Her goals are very similar to Hirsch's but I feel less urgency from Martin's writings. I felt that Hirsch has much more urgency in his beliefs of how to improve education and make children more empowered citizens and our nation stronger. Martin's identification of cultural wealth aligns well with Hirsch's belief in reading rich and historical texts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I perceive Martin's concept of cultural wealth being more about individual and family heritage, whereas Hirsch's concept of cultural wealth is more about society and national history. Just a thought. But, studying the two so closely at the same time created this dicotomy in my thoughts.
Lastly, has this affected my thinking about curriculum development? Absolutely. The experience of intensely studying one advocate's (Hirsch) ideas of what is good curriculum has made me realize that I need to study other perspectives. But I need to do it with a critical eye. When someone feels very strongly on a matter, such as each of these experts, it shines a light on the extremes. This allows a clearer definition of that perpective. But, rather than embrace each intensely, I want to bring away with me what is good out of it and find a balance, a blend that is best for a particular curricular circumstance. What I mean is that from each of these experts you can get a new "ingredient" that can be used in different quantities and in different combinations with other "ingredients" to design a curriculum that is customized to the needs of that circumstance, to that desired outcome that you are seeking. It will be interesting to carry this forward into the next assignment where we will develop a curriculum and will have these perspectives and tools to apply.
Let me start my reflection with the group dynamics. It was a great experience. I learned how connected a group can be even though we are at a distance from one another. With the assignment timeframe, I found that the biggest challenge was getting ourselves connected. Deciding on where we would collaborate stalled us in the beginning. But, not much. It was just confusing. Each of us didn't know what tools the others were most comfortable with and we wanted to be sure we each would be able to get to the materials with equal ease. That is a reflection of how respectful and considerate we were to one another.
Danielle was great at stepping up and formulating the questions. She is very enthusiastic and a real motivator. You could tell that she had done her research and wrote great questions, really more than that, she wrote a script. (we all agreed to research both characters so we would all be well prepared, and we shared literature amongst us). This set the framework for Xiyao and I. Xiyao had the greatest challenge to try to translate Jane Roland Martin's writings into a character. But, when there was a struggle we all rallied together to try to find a solution. As a group, we shared the work equally. We set milestones and deadlines that we hit, not dead on, but very close. I also liked how we were very efficient in our planning and communicating. We touched base in class, made general plans face-to-face and then got into specifics and the time consuming work online and individually.
I have a very hard time evaluating my own performance. Being in the moment precludes a good objective assessment of what I said. I hope I was true to what Hirsch would have said. For answering questions I just had to synthesize his beliefs, his writings, and his career to create the answer I think he would embrace. Danielle was very much in the role and did a great job with timing and keeping us well paced. Xiyao had such a difficult character, she had to speak more "on the fly" than I did. And she did a great job doing it. She was well paced and thoughtful in her answers. There is so much material for preparing for Hirsch I felt like I had an advantage to speaking in character. I listened twice to a podcast of one of his presentations and that was a great help. I'm afraid more of my personality leaked into the presentation of Hirsch than I had meant.
I know that studying Hirsch affected my beliefs about curriculum. One of my classmates from previous classes asked me what I truly felt about Hirsch's ideas and I was surprised to hear myself rationalizing and explaining his beliefs. I reflected on my own educational experiences as a child and could see the merits in Hirsch's ideas. And all of his work is supported by research and he explains his enlightenment from the research he has done and his own experiences as a teacher. I also find Martin's philosophies appealing, but in a much lesser sense. Her goals are very similar to Hirsch's but I feel less urgency from Martin's writings. I felt that Hirsch has much more urgency in his beliefs of how to improve education and make children more empowered citizens and our nation stronger. Martin's identification of cultural wealth aligns well with Hirsch's belief in reading rich and historical texts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I perceive Martin's concept of cultural wealth being more about individual and family heritage, whereas Hirsch's concept of cultural wealth is more about society and national history. Just a thought. But, studying the two so closely at the same time created this dicotomy in my thoughts.
Lastly, has this affected my thinking about curriculum development? Absolutely. The experience of intensely studying one advocate's (Hirsch) ideas of what is good curriculum has made me realize that I need to study other perspectives. But I need to do it with a critical eye. When someone feels very strongly on a matter, such as each of these experts, it shines a light on the extremes. This allows a clearer definition of that perpective. But, rather than embrace each intensely, I want to bring away with me what is good out of it and find a balance, a blend that is best for a particular curricular circumstance. What I mean is that from each of these experts you can get a new "ingredient" that can be used in different quantities and in different combinations with other "ingredients" to design a curriculum that is customized to the needs of that circumstance, to that desired outcome that you are seeking. It will be interesting to carry this forward into the next assignment where we will develop a curriculum and will have these perspectives and tools to apply.